Leave in State appeals against acquittal can accompany the appeal, but High Court Rules required Division Bench consideration.

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was construed as imposing only a restriction on entertaining an appeal against acquittal unless leave is granted, not as creating a separate mandatory preliminary proceeding for an independent leave application. The prayer for leave may be included in the memorandum of appeal, and the scheme distinguishes State appeals from complainant appeals under Section 378(4), where special leave is expressly required. On that reading, the connected appeal against acquittal and leave request were required under the relevant High Court Rules to be dealt with by a Division Bench, so disposal by a Single Judge was not competent.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed with or as part of a proposed State appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1), had to be heard by a Division Bench under the High Court Rules, or could be disposed of by a Single Judge.

Analysis: Section 378(3) creates only a restriction on entertainment of an appeal against acquittal unless leave of the High Court is granted. The Code does not contemplate a separate mandatory stage of an independent application for leave before an appeal can be presented. The prayer for leave may be included in the memorandum of appeal itself, and the statutory scheme distinguishes State appeals from complainant appeals under Section 378(4), where special leave is expressly required as a condition precedent. The earlier view that leave must first be sought as a distinct preliminary proceeding was not supported by the language of the provision and could not control the statutory right of appeal. Under the applicable High Court Rule, the appeal against acquittal and the connected leave request were required to be dealt with by a Bench of two Judges.

Conclusion: The application for leave under Section 378(3) was not competent to be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge; it had to be placed before a Division Bench, and the contrary view was overruled.

---